MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380082198 · doi:10.2478/jos-2023-0012

From Quarterly to Monthly Turnover Figures Using Nowcasting Methods

2023· article· en· W4380082198 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Official Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNowcastingBenchmarkingEconometricsComputer scienceTerm (time)Quarter (Canadian coin)PopulationValue (mathematics)StatisticsActuarial scienceEconomicsGeographyMathematicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Short-term business statistics at Statistics Netherlands are largely based on Value Added Tax (VAT) administrations. Companies may decide to file their tax return on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Most companies file their tax return quarterly. So far, these VAT based short-term business statistics are published with a quarterly frequency as well. In this article we compare different methods to compile monthly figures, even though a major part of these data is observed quarterly. The methods considered to produce a monthly indicator must address two issues. The first issue is to combine a high- and low-frequency series into a single high-frequency series, while both series measure the same phenomenon of the target population. The appropriate method that is designed for this purpose is usually referred to as “benchmarking”. The second issue is a missing data problem, because the first and second month of a quarter are published before the corresponding quarterly data is available. A “nowcast” method can be used to estimate these months. The literature on mixed frequency models provides solutions for both problems, sometimes by dealing with them simultaneously. In this article we combine different benchmarking and nowcasting models and evaluate combinations. Our evaluation distinguishes between relatively stable periods and periods during and after a crisis because different approaches might be optimal under these two conditions. We find that during stable periods the so-called Bridge models perform slightly better than the alternatives considered. Until about fifteen months after a crisis, the models that rely heavier on historic patterns such as the Bridge, MIDAS and structural time series models are outperformed by more straightforward (S)ARIMA approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it